Would We Be Willing To Change Our Theories?

New Posts

C

capps

New Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
29
Most of the posters here,in this point of the JB murder (8 long years!),after grueling novice investigating and reviewing (with the help of this forum),have pretty iron clad theories.

Would we at this time be willing to change our theories,if something was discovered that pulled you away from your theory.I'm not talking big this is the smoking gun discovery,but something that would make you say ...hmmmm,never thought of that?

Would you ... honestly?
 
People who are close-minded may not realize that they're close-minded, so posing the question directly may not get you far. That said, part of the draw of following cases such as this is continually gauging the accuracy of one's own instincts and analytical abilities in general, as well as in particular. If information is available that can help establish one's gaps in knowledge, prejudices, misunderstandings, etc., it's valuable in many ways--once the humble pie is eaten.
 
capps said:
Most of the posters here,in this point of the JB murder (8 long years!),after grueling novice investigating and reviewing (with the help of this forum),have pretty iron clad theories.

Would we at this time be willing to change our theories,if something was discovered that pulled you away from your theory.I'm not talking big this is the smoking gun discovery,but something that would make you say ...hmmmm,never thought of that?

Would you ... honestly?
Click to expand...


capps,

Yes. My BDI theories change all the time to include newly discovered credible evidence.
 
Had the 911 called contained Burke and John's voices, I would have seriously reconsidered. If certain, specific Ramsey supporters i,e, Jeanne Boylan, Lou Smit, etc were to change their positions it would carry a lot of weight. But I think without new evidence we are all pretty much left spinning our wheels.
 
It would depend on what the evidence was. I can't say yes and I can't say no. However, the evidence would have to be really compelling to change my mind. IOW, not propaganda by the Ramsey's, Mary Keenan (or whatever her name is this week), or Lin Wood.
 
tipper said:
Had the 911 called contained Burke and John's voices, I would have seriously reconsidered. If certain, specific Ramsey supporters i,e, Jeanne Boylan, Lou Smit, etc were to change their positions it would carry a lot of weight. But I think without new evidence we are all pretty much left spinning our wheels.
Click to expand...


tipper,

The final four seconds of the 911 call were enhanced, not the entire 911 call.

You were allowed to hear the original tape in its entirety including the final four seconds -- but not the ENHANCED final four seconds. Therefore, it was near impossible for you to hear Burke's and John's voices at the end -- all you could hear at the end was the noise prior to it being enhanced. The voices are there, but not easily distinguishable as voices.

It was just one more "semantics" trick by Mary Keenan and Lin Wood, and you and many others fell for it.

Burke's voice is on the final four enhanced seconds of the 911 tape. Those four seconds ARE what is misleadingly referred to as the "enhanced 911 tape'". The enhanced final four seconds has never been released to the public.

BlueCrab
 
I don't want to get into yet another debate on the 911 call. I listened, I heard the Help me Jesus and I read Tricia's expert's opinion. If Aerospace starts talking (which they won't and shouldn't) I'll pay attention again.
 
The thread asks about willingness to change views and I will mention a real case that might say something about the position of "advocates." Chandra Levy disappeared in early Summer 2001. The media and a lot of the public frenzied (until 9-11-2001 knocked it off the screen) over Congressman Condit and his perceived guilt. Who can forget CNN's Bob Franken stationed outside the Levy home to report Dr. Levy's leaving for work, returning for lunch, and driving home each day. Full time Condit attacks ruled.

The perception of Condit's "guilt" despite an apparent alibi that included the VP had rocketed upward after a well known press conference by the Levy attorney. He had answered a question about Chandra's possibly being pregnant by saying the family knew, but were not going to reveal the answer to the public. I saw it with friends and everyone said "Oh my God, she was pregnant." That was the consensus and it "confirmed" a motive for Condit to kill the poor girl.

But then about 8-11-01, a reporter from (I think) "Talk" magazine was on the "Today" show and revealed that Mrs Levy knew for an absolute fact that Chandra was NOT pregnant. So, the motive evaporated, and the issue came down to the supposition that a philanderer supposedly killed his last fling while she had her bags packed and was ready to fly out of his life and open him up for the next in line. No good reason to kill had ever existed after all...in fact, for a serial philanderer, it might have been an ideal result.

But what happened was an enomous nothing. Noone would even cover that dramatic revelation. Despite cosiderable personal dislike for Condit, I contacted every cable and news network and asked why they avoided it and suggested it was a "big story". No luck. It wasn't the "In" thing to report. The story was "Condit guilt". Some people, I'm sure still think she was pregnant.

As applied to the topic here, I can say I personally can change when new facts emerge and I have in the past. Getting newly emerging facts that challenge a prevailing focus through an indifferent press to the public may be tough. Maybe the public at large doesn't really want to hear them. Forems like this may represent one of the few places where people really can change.
 
BlueCrab said:
capps,

Yes. My BDI theories change all the time to include newly discovered credible evidence.
Click to expand...

lol ... nice try BC ... but the key words in my thread was discoveries that pulled you AWAY from your THEORY.
 
I really have no idea what happened there that night.
I would be really suprised if a Ramsey isnt involved in this, but I dont care who gets the blame, I just want to know who did it.
 
If the evidence presented was solid, yes, I'd change my opinion.

Rainsong
 
Lacy Wood said:
The thread asks about willingness to change views and I will mention a real case that might say something about the position of "advocates." Chandra Levy disappeared in early Summer 2001. The media and a lot of the public frenzied (until 9-11-2001 knocked it off the screen) over Congressman Condit and his perceived guilt. Who can forget CNN's Bob Franken stationed outside the Levy home to report Dr. Levy's leaving for work, returning for lunch, and driving home each day. Full time Condit attacks ruled.

The perception of Condit's "guilt" despite an apparent alibi that included the VP had rocketed upward after a well known press conference by the Levy attorney. He had answered a question about Chandra's possibly being pregnant by saying the family knew, but were not going to reveal the answer to the public. I saw it with friends and everyone said "Oh my God, she was pregnant." That was the consensus and it "confirmed" a motive for Condit to kill the poor girl.

But then about 8-11-01, a reporter from (I think) "Talk" magazine was on the "Today" show and revealed that Mrs Levy knew for an absolute fact that Chandra was NOT pregnant. So, the motive evaporated, and the issue came down to the supposition that a philanderer supposedly killed his last fling while she had her bags packed and was ready to fly out of his life and open him up for the next in line. No good reason to kill had ever existed after all...in fact, for a serial philanderer, it might have been an ideal result.

But what happened was an enomous nothing. Noone would even cover that dramatic revelation. Despite cosiderable personal dislike for Condit, I contacted every cable and news network and asked why they avoided it and suggested it was a "big story". No luck. It wasn't the "In" thing to report. The story was "Condit guilt". Some people, I'm sure still think she was pregnant.

As applied to the topic here, I can say I personally can change when new facts emerge and I have in the past. Getting newly emerging facts that challenge a prevailing focus through an indifferent press to the public may be tough. Maybe the public at large doesn't really want to hear them. Forems like this may represent one of the few places where people really can change.
Click to expand...

I realize this is off topic but... I recently attended a cold case conference where the Levy murder was discussed. A powerpoint presentation was given before several hundred investigators. I won't disclose the name of the expert who led the seminar but he is very well known from the Levy case and others. He said there is no way to know for sure whether Chandra was pregnant because of the condition her remains were in, and that her previous gynecology appointment was a while before she went missing. Had she taken a recent pregnancy test and got a positive result, she might not have told her friends or family yet (although she did indicate to her aunt by marriage that she had "news"). This is not to suggest she took such a test and was pregnant, only that her status died with her and there was no forensic way to prove it. The expert also said there was reason to have hope that the case might one day be solved as a federal grand jury had been hearing testimony.
 
yeah i'll change my ill-thought-out theories, from one improbable theory to another. No problemo!

it's a bizarre case and i can't imagine it being solved.

BC, are you saying that you are so sure with regards to your BDI theories that a non-BDI theory is now out of the question for you to support, even though you may change elements of your BDI theories to account for new evidence?

Is your evidence for BDI that strong?
 
halycon said:
I realize this is off topic but... I recently attended a cold case conference where the Levy murder was discussed. A powerpoint presentation was given before several hundred investigators. I won't disclose the name of the expert who led the seminar but he is very well known from the Levy case and others. He said there is no way to know for sure whether Chandra was pregnant because of the condition her remains were in, and that her previous gynecology appointment was a while before she went missing. Had she taken a recent pregnancy test and got a positive result, she might not have told her friends or family yet (although she did indicate to her aunt by marriage that she had "news"). This is not to suggest she took such a test and was pregnant, only that her status died with her and there was no forensic way to prove it. The expert also said there was reason to have hope that the case might one day be solved as a federal grand jury had been hearing testimony.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comment on my earlier post. What you say is undoubtably true but yet confirms my earlier thought. Why? Because it shows "several hundred investigators" at a conference were not even aware that Chandra was at home in California 2 weeks before her disappearance and she and her mother were both having their periods simultaneously. This information came from Mrs Levy. It is a fact that was revealed at the height of the case frenzy but ignored by individuals and those of the press who wanted to downplay a factoid that eliminated motive. Her mother "knew" Chandra was not pregnant, but a bunch of experts at a conference were apparent "explaining" and rationalizing why no evidence of a fetus was found with the remains. The conference members were probably being objective, but an important detail had never reached them. (For those who want to point out that having a period doesn't absolutely rule out pregnancy or that Chandra could have lied to her Mom...That's possible, but the point is that the compelling contrary info was ignored.)

This thread deals with ability to change views following revelations, so the Levy pregnancy issue isn't really off-topic...and being no fan of Mr. Condit, it's the only reason I introduced it.
 
capps said:
lol ... nice try BC ... but the key words in my thread was discoveries that pulled you AWAY from your THEORY.
Click to expand...


capps,

No one other than the killer knows for sure what happened that night. Therefore, I have a lot of theories, but they all revolve around BR. A new item of evidence may be able to pull me away from one or more of my BDI theories, but that's all.

I'll never abandon my general BDI theory. The physical evidence, such as the fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple, and the Ramsey coverup featuring endless lies, obfuscations, and losses of memory to protect BR are compelling that BR did it or he knows who did it.

The Ramseys would coverup such a brutal murder of their little girl ONLY to protect BR, no one else.

BlueCrab
 
I have so many different theories that it'd be a challenge NOT to change them. I find very few things definitive in this case. One thing I feel very certain about, is that this was not the neighborhood creep/local sex offender/intruder. That does not necessarily mean it is a Ramsey. I think it is either a Ramsey or someone they know quite well. There is much evidence which I think suggests that. As for Ramsey involvement, I am completely open...some days I think they did it; some days I think they helped out; some days I think they covered for whoever did it; and some days I think they had nothing to do with it. There now. That should clear everything up!
 
capps said:
Most of the posters here,in this point of the JB murder (8 long years!),after grueling novice investigating and reviewing (with the help of this forum),have pretty iron clad theories.

Would we at this time be willing to change our theories,if something was discovered that pulled you away from your theory.I'm not talking big this is the smoking gun discovery,but something that would make you say ...hmmmm,never thought of that?

Would you ... honestly?
Click to expand...


Since I don't have a theory, I'd be willing to look at any evidence.
 
GuruJosh, that is so funny, yet so true.

Everyone of my theories has a hole in it....from intruder to JAR.

Evidence that will close that hole in any theory will certainly change my opinion.

But, in my mind, the pineapple has always led me to believe it was an "inside job" as JR said. AND the source of that piece of evidence must be questioned.
 
BlueCrab said:
capps,

No one other than the killer knows for sure what happened that night. Therefore, I have a lot of theories, but they all revolve around BR. A new item of evidence may be able to pull me away from one or more of my BDI theories, but that's all.

I'll never abandon my general BDI theory. The physical evidence, such as the fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple, and the Ramsey coverup featuring endless lies, obfuscations, and losses of memory to protect BR are compelling that BR did it or he knows who did it.

The Ramseys would coverup such a brutal murder of their little girl ONLY to protect BR, no one else.

BlueCrab
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying BC.
But if one of your general BDI theories is BR knows who did it .... then your general theories should also include PDI and JDI,because I think they also know who did it.Knowing who did it,and actually being involved in the crime are two different things ... could one of your theories be JARDI ... I would imagine that would be the only other Ramsey JR and PR would cover up for. But JAR has been cleared.I don't think they would cover up for any other minor.Agree?
 
Voice of Reason said:
I have so many different theories that it'd be a challenge NOT to change them. I find very few things definitive in this case. One thing I feel very certain about, is that this was not the neighborhood creep/local sex offender/intruder. That does not necessarily mean it is a Ramsey. I think it is either a Ramsey or someone they know quite well. There is much evidence which I think suggests that. As for Ramsey involvement, I am completely open...some days I think they did it; some days I think they helped out; some days I think they covered for whoever did it; and some days I think they had nothing to do with it. There now. That should clear everything up!
Click to expand...

Gee VOR ... you're really iron clad ... can't you flip flop at least a little!.... LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 243 more.
Total: 4,206 (members: 244, guests: 3,962)

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
3,962
Total visitors
4,206
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,544
Messages
17,954,432
Members
228,528
Latest member
Quincy_M.E.
Back
Top